>literally just a Boeing 737 with a bomb bayLove me the P-8 poseidon. Also has automatic sonobuoy deployment racks which are also capable of deploying drones. Oh and hardpoints on the wings for anti ship missiles
>>65310242Why not take this to make the wedgetail out of?>AWACS launches SM2s out of it's bomb bay to defend itself against incoming missiles that it tracks itself.
>>65310310>Take Wedgetail>Decide that the pilots need something to do too>Give it a revolving bomb bay full of SM2s>Its now an arsenal AWACSI think we can pitch this to trump to get it funded and built tomorrow.
>>65310242So it's actually "just a 737 with a bomb bay" and hard points and sonar and drones and active radar and....
>>65310242It's a pretty popular plane to fly too.
do sonars from helos and buoys work after a thermocline though?
>>65310242Can the P-8 carry bombs like the P-3 could? I know that the New Zealanders used theirs as medium bombers.
>>65310242
>>65311064horrifying lmao
>don't talk to me, or my son, or my son's son every again
AAAHHHHHHHHHH
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
RRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH
>>65311120>>65311124Its like a Squidward cloeup.
>>65311128closeup
>>65310242Why don't we just take a Boeing 737, give it the radar set and equipment of the E-2 Hawkeye and have that replace the E-3 Sentry?
>>65311138Because Northrop Grumman and the RAAF already put a better radar on the 737 more than a decade ago.Everyone was just to poor (UK, Taiwan) and gay (US, Japan) to buy it.
>>65311059>Can the P-8 carry bombs like the P-3 could?Off the top of my head it can carry JDAM’s, ASW torpedos, mines, AShP missiles and sonar buoys.>I know that the New Zealanders used theirs as medium bombers.I don’t know why the P-8 and P-3’s are not commonly classed as bombers, like I get their main classification is maritime patrol and ASW craft but a P-8 can still bomb the shit out of land based targets.>>65311064Chinese submarines hate to see this guy coming
>>65311064Kek
>>65311120Let's play a game>Enemy submarines: EEK
>>65310353>and....not a MAD (except on the Indian version that follows the original design)
>>65310242>boing>737Oh oh.
>literally just 2 engines with wings with tens of millions of modifications retard
>>65310242ASW planes are the bleeding edge. The P3 was the original reason the harpoon was developed. And that was to shoot surfaced submarines.
>>65311033Yeah they can set them above and below and even set them to change on a timed interval between above and below. your life is over if a western asw plane shows up.
>8 external hardpoints>8 internal hardpoints
>>65311138>>65310310>>65310353It's aerodynamically dogshit. The 737 was optimized for passenger capacity, speed, then fuel efficiency (gallon per mile) and around a massive long internal cabin. Relative to it's gigantic size and fuel consumption, its payload is really small and incredibly fuel inefficient. I mean, you can see the operators walking around in a fuck huge empty space. The Saab global more cleverly uses a much smaller business jet airframe. Worst of all, jet engines are extremely fuel inefficient compared to propellors. It only makes sense because ASW places have low production so it is easier to use existing airframes.
>>65311835having 737 as a base allows you to use COTS parts and maintanence equipment which massively offsets costs compared to some fuel savings from a dedicated airframe or props
Even with high-bypass turbofan engines, is it impossible to change the characteristic feature of jet engines where the difference between economic speed and maximum speed is small?
>>65311835Saab marketing is entertaining and delusional.
>>65311124would
>>65311752I saw one of this niggas doing laps at a nearby airbase the last time I was in Japan, they're so cute.
>>65311752Nimrod had a place to drop bouys and the like, just behind the bomb bay.
>>65313382Man the Nimrod looks so cool, I love planes with the engines blended into the wings
it's as if the airframe is the least important part of a plane like this
>>65312132The benefits also stack if you operate more planes based on the same type. The RAAF has the Wedgetails, Poseidons and a business variant of the passenger 737 all in service together. Way more parts, service and training commonality within the air force in addition to the easier time finding parts and people outside it.
>>65317402And lots of spare parts/support already in country due to Qantas and Virgin 737NGs.
>>65317338Toilet, Galley and a place to get a kip is most important on, no wait...
>>65317426I'd be curious if the easier conversion to a civvie airframe qualification versus a more specialised aircraft is of interest to pilots, same for the KC-30 for that matter.Still think it's neat that they can convert from a tanker to cargo and passengers and back as needs change, and look like a proper normal ass airliner when they're set up for passengers.
>>65311835>>65311835>fuel efficiency>propsAnon you do know that behind the propeller of a E-2 sits a gas turbine engine? Turboprops are only more efficient at lower airspeeds and are limited to lower altitudes. Any transonic jet will be as efficient or more at typical mach numbers and altitudes.And the main thing in radar or even ASW airframes is power generation. Which is why the P-8 and E-7 both have these bulbous things on their engine pods to house larger generators. The global 6000 has 4(5 if you run the APU) 40 KVA generators. The E-7 has 4 90 KVA generators. And as anon >>65312132 said there are 10000 plus 737NG/Max's around as well as the MRO and spare parts pipelines. And remember that the CFM56 on the 737 was ALSO delivered on the airbus. There are 33000 of these engines flying around. It'd be harder to find an A&P mechanic that doesn't know these engines than one who does.>payload First off all the stuff for sensors, radars, operator stations is all included in the airframe weight. And even then the 737 beats the global by a wide margin. >fuelThe global isn't that bad, it's just that the 737 has all that internal volume in it's cargo hold that can fit enough aux tanks to almost double it's fuel capacity - as is done on the E-7 and BBJs.The only technical disadvantage that comes with the 737 is a higher RCS. Which idk if it's relevant considering this thing will glow like the sun anyway since it is supposed to emit high power radar.The real advantage of the Saab is that it's not american made and you shouldn't rely on your enemy for vital assets.For the Americans it should be a done deal to do a 737 based AEW aircraft.
>>65317476yes, and IIRC the military has some program which allows them to commandeer civil aircraft for that duty in a war if needed
>>65311117>>65311120>>65311124why is the plane screaming?
>>65322397why would the plane not be screaming?
>>65322397If you were smart, you'd be screaming too.
>>65310242Not exactly a good replacement for the P3.
>>65310242Why isn’t it more common to turn airliners into military aircraft, especially with how modern aircraft are built in bulkhead parts?
>>65311059They carry all of the same stuff.
>>65317867The breakeven point on prop vs. fan is 0.5M. Airliners are further optimized for just under transonic speeds (0.85M).
>>65325139It kinda depends. The P-8 lacks MAD and isn't well-suited for low'n'slow operations. Adaptations had to be made in order to deploy sonobuoys and torpedoes (HAAWC) from higher altitudes and faster speeds. It could certainly be argued that purely from an ASW perspective, the P-8 is an inferior airframe compared to a turboprop. Of course, the Nimrod serves as a useful counterpoint to that claim.However, that's just ASW. Maritime patrol these days is a lot more focused on floaty things and even sometimes dirty things (especially the EP-3s) rather than on bubbly things. Having a 737-based aircraft that can tool around at jetliner speeds, uses mostly commercial logistics, and can probably perform the other missions *better* than the P-3 is worth it as long as its performance at ASW is adequate.>>65325190It depends on the mission. Airliners *are* used a lot--Douglas made far more DC-3s for the US Army than for the airlines. The 707 was a parallel development of a military design that's still in service (KC-135s, E-3s, E-6s, etc.) today. 747s, 757s, and 767s have all been purchased for everything from presidential planes to nuclear command aircraft to AWACS; the P-8 falls into this category. Some modern military cargo aircraft tend to have special requirements, however, e.g., the ability of the C-130 or C-17 to operate on rough (even dirt) airstrips and deploy troops or cargo by parachute, which dictate design elements that you just won't find on a commercial aircraft. Plus, the US in particular uses the CRAF, in which it subsidizes airliner purchases in exchange for the right to commandeer them in times of need. Add in buying commercial seats (or even entire flights), and that largely takes care of the need to keep large numbers of airliners painted green or gray.
>>65325190>>65326201On the economy of scale thing it's also worth pointing out that some closely aligned air forces are beginning to make it SOP to allow identical airframes to be serviced by whoever's closest. The USAF and RAAF have had a cross-training program for C-17As since 2019 for instance. They could've technically worked on each other's before but now they do additional training so everyone knows the other air force's workflows to make sure everything's done the same way and to the same standards as if they'd done them in-house. I'm sure other air forces have their own programs, but just between those you have 230 of the 279 airframes built in the same maintenance workflow.I believe that the USAF, RAAF and RNZAF just signed something similar for their C-130J fleets which puts 210 of 500 in a similar position.Point is that improving reach of your support and parts chain is still possible with other airframes.
>>65325190In my more cynical moments, I sometimes wonder if one motivation is not wanting to hand a commercially in-demand type rating to people who are more than capable of comparing military pay and conditions to that of civvy street and making appropriate career decisions.
